MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398784776 · doi:10.1093/europace/euae102.024

Clinical significance of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with coronary artery or peripheral artery disease: results from the COMPASS trial

2024· article· en· W4398784776 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander P. Benz, Marco Alings, Jackie Bosch, Álvaro Avezum, Deepak L. Bhatt, Jeff S. Healey, Linda Johnson, William F. McIntyre, Petr Widimský, Salim Yusuf, Stuart J. Connolly, John W. Eikelboom

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicinePeripheralArterial diseaseCompassArteryVascular disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The COMPASS trial enrolled patients with coronary artery or peripheral artery disease, but excluded patients requiring oral anticoagulation. Compared to aspirin alone, rivaroxaban in addition to aspirin reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke or myocardial infarction. Purpose This study aimed to explore the clinical significance of a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) during follow-up. Methods New AF was identified from unplanned hospitalization, study drug discontinuation and adverse event reports. The associations between new-onset AF, clinical characteristics and outcomes in COMPASS participants were studied using time-updated regression modeling. Event rates were reported as per 100 patient-years (following a new diagnosis of AF vs. from randomization until the end-follow-up or new AF, whichever came first). Results During a mean follow-up of 23 months, 655 of 27,395 participants (2.4%) were newly diagnosed with AF. Advanced age, male sex, white race, higher body mass index, higher systolic blood pressure, heart failure and prior myocardial infarction were independently associated with new-onset AF. The rates of permanent discontinuation of study drug were 83.8% following a new diagnosis of AF, compared to 17.5% in participants without/before new AF. Compared to participants without/before a new diagnosis of AF, participants with new-onset AF were at increased risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke or myocardial infarction (8.9 vs. 2.5 per 100 patient-years, hazard ratio [HR] 4.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.37-6.00) (Figure 1). Risk increases with new-onset AF were also observed for hospitalization for heart failure (9.1 vs. 1.1 per 100 patient-years, HR 6.35, 95% CI 4.59-8.80) (Figure 2) and major bleeding (4.1 vs. 1.3 per 100 patient-years, HR 2.93, 95% CI 1.99-4.33). Conclusion In COMPASS, a new diagnosis of AF during trial follow-up was associated with a marked increase in risk of adverse outcomes.Composite outcome after new-onset AFHeart failure after new-onset AF

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207